The most impactful pension news you'll never hear.

[sidicks]

FiF said:

Yes, true, and those over optimistic forecasts have been used in particular ways. What's clear is that the rise in life expectancy cannot continue despite predictions from some folks who should know better, that's before including journalists who either don't know any better or do but choose not to display it for the sake of clicks and column inches.

That’s a pretty bold statement when you look at the main causes of death and the medical advances talking place in those key areas. I disagree fundamentally - it’s highly likely that life expectancy will continue to show improvements in the short-medium term, albeit slowing improvements, unless or until a significant medical breakthrough occurs.

FIF said:

Further to my comment about the kebab eating binge drinking sector, the pensioners dying today are mostly those who lived through the war, ate healthier diets, and have really benefited from improved health care, probably also benefits from fewer smoking and improvements in air quality. Swings and roundabouts obviously.

Personal view, when I read journalusts prattling that we will all live to a hundred, not so sure.

That doesn’t need to happen for average life expectancy to continue to improve!

[Zigster]

I remember seeing a talk by this guy a few years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey

Choice quote from that Wiki page which got quite a lot of press at the time:
"In a 2008 broadcast on the Arte German & French TV, de Grey claimed that the first human to live 1,000 years was probably already alive, and might even be between 50 and 60 years old already."

[sidicks]

Zigster said:

I remember seeing a talk by this guy a few years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey

Choice quote from that Wiki page which got quite a lot of press at the time:
"In a 2008 broadcast on the Arte German & French TV, de Grey claimed that the first human to live 1,000 years was probably already alive, and might even be between 50 and 60 years old already."

I’ve met this guy - he gives a good speech, but I’m not sure I’m aligned to his viewpoint!

[ianrb]

Zigster said:

I remember seeing a talk by this guy a few years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey

Choice quote from that Wiki page which got quite a lot of press at the time:
"In a 2008 broadcast on the Arte German & French TV, de Grey claimed that the first human to live 1,000 years was probably already alive, and might even be between 50 and 60 years old already."

He was on TV a few weeks ago, and to be honest he didn't look very healthy.

[sidicks]

ianrb said:

He was on TV a few weeks ago, and to be honest he didn't look very healthy.

[jeff m2]

tankplanker said:

jeff m2 said:

Hmm....most kids don't remain under 12 for 35 years.

Just curious, as my Mother never worked, can't ask her now about her pension....for the obvious reason.

The rules were different before April 2016, so if she retired before then it is likely she had more than she would have done now assuming she didn't top it up somehow, and the changes shouldn't mean anybody who is already claiming their state pension should be worse off, only better off.

There are some exceptions for those close to retirement age, those that were paying reduced NI for some reason (say, married women's reduced contributions, which finished in '77 I think?), so you would need to work it out on an individual basis.

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/...

Thanks for that, I do remember her not rushing to get it, so it was probably modest, possibly linked to my Fathers from what I could get from that link.

[Gargamel]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

We spend 0.07% of GDP on Foreign Aid.

https://fullfact.org/economy/uk-spending-foreign-a...

I am relatively ambivalent about it, as in I am not all angry of Tonbridge Wells. But it is always worth reflecting that Tax and Spending is about choices. I would think for MOST people, before we actually scrap the state pension, Foreign Aid should be cut first. The article refers to a "reserve fund" of £25bn to cover fluctuations, and it is this reserve that will disappear by 2025.

Therefore something relatively simple would be to go 50% 50% of FA and Pensions.

This won't get near the full liability of course.

[sidicks]

Gargamel said:

We spend 0.07% of GDP on Foreign Aid.

https://fullfact.org/economy/uk-spending-foreign-a...

I am relatively ambivalent about it, as in I am not all angry of Tonbridge Wells. But it is always worth reflecting that Tax and Spending is about choices. I would think for MOST people, before we actually scrap the state pension, Foreign Aid should be cut first. The article refers to a "reserve fund" of £25bn to cover fluctuations, and it is this reserve that will disappear by 2025.

Therefore something relatively simple would be to go 50% 50% of FA and Pensions.

This won't get near the full liability of course.

1. It’s (Royal) Tunbridge Wells, not Tonbridge Wells!

2. The argument is that cutting foreign aid does NOT actually save you any money, as you lose more elsewhere (I.e. it potentially costs you money).

[tankplanker]

jeff m2 said:

Thanks for that, I do remember her not rushing to get it, so it was probably modest, possibly linked to my Fathers from what I could get from that link.

If you defer it for a year or more then the monthly payment increases, its about £9 a month for every year deferred at present. If she was due to retire at 60 then its a good idea as you'll more than make the money back over the lifetime of the pension.

[Blaster72]

They'll just keep bumping up the age at which you can draw state pension until it sorts itself out. It's already 67 for me and no doubt will move to 68 or 69 or even older.

That or Euthanasia pills through the post for the over 70's

[Zigster]

ianrb said:

Zigster said:

I remember seeing a talk by this guy a few years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey

Choice quote from that Wiki page which got quite a lot of press at the time:
"In a 2008 broadcast on the Arte German & French TV, de Grey claimed that the first human to live 1,000 years was probably already alive, and might even be between 50 and 60 years old already."

He was on TV a few weeks ago, and to be honest he didn't look very healthy.

He didn't say he was the human that would live to 1,000!

But, yeah, not convinced by his arguments - although definitely an interesting speaker.

[Skyedriver]

You are all missing the point.
Become an MP
You'll get a nice guaranteed pension well in excess of any state pension , although you can claim that too.

[p1doc]

Skyedriver said:

You are all missing the point.
Become an MP
You'll get a nice guaranteed pension well in excess of any state pension , although you can claim that too.

don't forget you get to vote for pension increase unlike any other professions who have to take what government force on them!
how much would 30yrs of NI contributions get you for your state pension?

[NickCQ]

Skyedriver said:

You are all missing the point.
Become an MP
You'll get a nice guaranteed pension well in excess of any state pension , although you can claim that too.

I don't understand this attitude. Being an MP must be just about the worst job in the country.

Constant hate in the press
Forced interaction with the general public in constituency surgeries
Long working hours
Minimal opportunity for career advancement w/o serious brown nosing
Random probability of losing your job every five years or so
Crap salary unless you are one of a small number of senior ministers / hit the after dinner circuit post retirement

[sidicks]

NickCQ said:

I don't understand this attitude. Being an MP must be just about the worst job in the country.

Constant hate in the press
Forced interaction with the general public in constituency surgeries
Long working hours
Minimal opportunity for career advancement w/o serious brown nosing
Random probability of losing your job every five years or so
Crap salary unless you are one of a small number of senior ministers / hit the after dinner circuit post retirement

Crap salary?

Circa 90k after benefits are taken into account for a job that requires no qualifications?!

[NickCQ]

sidicks said:

Crap salary?

Circa 90k after benefits are taken into account for a job that requires no qualifications?!

I thought it was more like 60k? The implicit deal used to be that the headline salary was pretty low for PR reasons but they made it up to you in expenses. Since the expenses 'scandal', this has all gone away. If I had to work at two ends of the country at once I would expect my employer to provide accommodation in one of them.

'No qualifications' is a bit of a red herring - it's not like just anyone can pitch up and do it given the process to get elected. I am sure the majority of MPs could earn more in the private sector if they based themselves in London full-time.

Disclaimer - I am not an MP and have no desire to be.

[Blaster72]

NickCQ said:

I thought it was more like 60k? The implicit deal used to be that the headline salary was pretty low for PR reasons but they made it up to you in expenses. Since the expenses 'scandal', this has all gone away. If I had to work at two ends of the country at once I would expect my employer to provide accommodation in one of them.

'No qualifications' is a bit of a red herring - it's not like just anyone can pitch up and do it given the process to get elected. I am sure the majority of MPs could earn more in the private sector if they based themselves in London full-time.

Disclaimer - I am not an MP and have no desire to be.

Erm, this is an MP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mhairi_Black No experience or qualifications required.

Salary - £74,962

Expenses (just for the one MP above claimed 2016-2017) - £49036 without paying for any staff, that comes on top.

For balance - Jeremy Hunt claimed £11,529 for the same period.

Source - http://www.mpsexpenses.info/#!/search

They are by no means poorly paid.

[BoRED S2upid]

MrBarry123 said:

I've always assumed that I'll never benefit from a state pension*, which is why I've paid into a private pension since I started full-time employment at 18.

The mathematics of the system simply don't work with a combination of comparatively low NI contributions and a population ageing in the way ours is now.

*I would be eligible under current rules in 2061...

ETA: It's all going to be very exciting when they finally axe the scheme. Can you imagine the uproar!?

Edited by MrBarry123 on Wednesday 10th January 09:44

I’m in this camp another 25 years until any state pension for me and I fully expect it to be axed by then or means tested so will be sorting retirement out for myself if there is £165 a week coming my way it will be an unexpected bonus.

[sidicks]

NickCQ said:

I thought it was more like 60k? The implicit deal used to be that the headline salary was pretty low for PR reasons but they made it up to you in expenses. Since the expenses 'scandal', this has all gone away. If I had to work at two ends of the country at once I would expect my employer to provide accommodation in one of them.

As above, 75k and the pension is worth 40%+. That’s before all the ‘legitimate’ expenses that can be claimed on top.

NickCQ said:

'No qualifications' is a bit of a red herring - it's not like just anyone can pitch up and do it given the process to get elected. I am sure the majority of MPs could earn more in the private sector if they based themselves in London full-time.

I’m sure that is NOT yet case for the majority!

[NickCQ]

Blaster72 said:

Erm, this is an MP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mhairi_Black No experience or qualifications required.

Salary - £74,962

Expenses (just for the one MP above claimed 2016-2017) - £49036 without paying for any staff, that comes on top.

This is exactly what I mean
http://www.mpsexpenses.info/#!/mp/839

The bulk of the claims are for accommodation in London (she's a Scottish MP so doesn't live there), constituency office rent and costs and travel. It's really not duck houses, mock Tudor beams and moat clearing.